The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Ceccolini, 542 F.2d 136 (2nd Cir. 1976):
Finally, the Government argues that the rule excluding the fruit of an illegal search is inappropriate in a perjury prosecution, especially when the perjury occurred after the illegal intrusion. Citing United States v. Raftery, 534 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1976), and United States v. Turk, 526 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1976), the Government contends that suppression serves no deterrent purpose when the search precedes the crime and that perjury cannot be condoned in any event.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.